Narcotics, including such materials as marijuana, cocaine, and the like, continue to be a problem within society, particularly when used prior to a person driving a vehicle or present in public. Notably, although some items, such as marijuana, have become more acceptable in certain regions, there still exists a definitive effect associated with such a substance that impairs judgment and physical ability in certain circumstances. Certainly, such concerns are prevalent with other types of drugs (cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc.) such that laws are in place almost uniformly around the country to prevent active usage of such potentially dangerous substances. Even with the burgeoning acceptance of Cannabis in certain locations, there still remains a legal basis thwart activities (such as driving, for instance) after exposure to such a legalized substance (much like there is prohibition for driving under the influence of alcohol). As such, there exists a need to provide not only an effective manner of testing individuals for the presence of such drugs within their system in general, but to do so in and under certain situations and circumstances that require immediate and careful analysis and recordation. Of particular importance is the ability to provide a suitable method of testing for such substances in a reliable manner, specifically as it pertains to actual usage by a person at the location of discovery. Such test protocols are typically requested and undertaken in response to the outward appearance and/or actions by an individual at a certain location, whether in a public place, behind the wheel of a car, or even within the confines of a dwelling or other like building. If there is probable cause to seek a test for such a purpose, the authorities may have the capability of testing as a result. Additionally, such situations also include employment requirements, corrections unit considerations, probation reviews, public school needs, and other locations that have drug-testing protocols for individuals.
One possible problem, however, that lurks behind the scenes of such a situation is the potential for an on-site test being challenged in a prosecution, arbitration, or administrative setting. In other words, even if an officer (or other like person or persons) properly requires, requests, and has performed an on-site controlled substance test of an individual (such as through the utilization of an oral fluid collection testing device), the lack of effective recordation and thorough control of such a test (and the result gleaned therefrom) has led to challenges to exclude such devices and results from evidence when, for example, such an individual is indicted and brought to trial for such an offense, fired or suspended from a job, or held liable for civil offenses, as merely examples. Generally, the utilization of on-site tests are limited in scope to the basic introduction of a test device within the mouth of the alleged drug user and then it is capped and placed into custody with minimal consideration for corroboration of person and test. The lack of effective guidance for an officer in such situations, as well, poses a distinct dilemma as there may be difficulties with the individual beyond a refusal to cooperate with the requested test, but also after such a test is undertaken. Although there is often utilized on-board video recording devices to aid in the presentation of a proper stop, inquiry, arrest, etc., by an officer or other authoritative person (particularly if the location of such a situation allows for such a camera to be aimed properly for such a purpose), the lack of exact views of the test device itself (such as serial number, recorded name of the officer and the tested individual, etc.) makes corroboration rather difficult even with such “eyewitness” accounts in place. Basically, even with a reliable test and ultimate positive result (for at least one controlled substance), an alleged criminal, in one example, may still have grounds to challenge the veracity of the overall protocol and measured drug levels in order to either bring into question the presentations made in court to that extent, or even to remove from evidence such devices due to a lack of definitive chain of evidence from officer to courtroom (e.g. the sample and/or records may be “tampered” with from the time of testing to the time such evidence is presented for courtroom review). Since the officer may simply record minimal information on/with the device subsequent to oral fluid introduction by an alleged drug user, and then such a device may be then merely deposited within a evidence collection device and/or area at the police station, without any further exact indications as to the identity of the subject perpetrator and the correlation between the test device and that person, specifically, the potential for attack by a defense attorney at any time (pre-trial, such as discovery and/or exclusionary evidence motions) remains relatively high. Furthermore, the potential that bad actors within the police department itself could possibly violate (or allow to be violated) a used test device by planting results thereon and/or therein while out of the testing officer's possession is at least an available inquiry by such a defense attorney if in a court setting, particularly without effective verification means in place to properly combat such an accusation. Many court cases, some famous, some certainly not as well known, have depended primarily upon circumstantial and, in some cases, direct evidence that has a questionable history due to interference with other individuals prior to discovery and/or actual trial. Thus, there exists a significant need to provide effective means to best ensure that chains of evidence or, at least, the test devices utilized in such situations are verifiable as relating not only to the specific person tested, but to a specific date and time at which the test was actually undertaken. As noted above, as well, such issues may and do arise in employment settings, jail situations, probationary situations, etc., such that the necessity for verified and reliable test results in this nature are universally needed and important for these similar reasons.
To date, there have been minimal activities in this area that have been developed to meet this issue. Breathalyzer tests have been utilized that allow for on-site testing for alcohol, certainly. Correlation, however, with the computerized system, and/or a video recording device permits greater flexibility with such devices to ensure that a specific person is actually tested on the date and time involved and the result is properly presented in an effective manner such that all such results are archived properly for courtroom needs. In those situations, the defense attorney may still attack the actual trustworthiness of the breathing test itself, rather than the chain of command over the evidence obtained from such a test method, since the computerized systems are given significant leeway in that manner. The problem lies with a base test protocol that is not directly tied to a computer device for “automatic” collection of information for criminal prosecution purposes. Time stamping with such a computerized system at least would allow for reliability as to the actual test sample coupled with a contemporaneous recordation by the same authority figure of the target person's identity; however, such requirements have not been provided beyond the breathalyzer result itself. As well, typical tests do not effectively permit collection and preservation of the test subject's DNA to permit verification of test subject to test result at a later date.
Beyond such a deficient test protocol, the prior art is limited to base test methods alone. Oral fluids have been collected and tested on the spot by authority figures with encapsulated test devices, certainly. However, as with breathalyzers, these past tests are limited to simple written recordations on the test device surface which may be altered or otherwise defaced during the time after testing to actual possible introduction within a trial in a courtroom setting. Again, although the test results are superlative, generally, with such oral fluid collection devices, the potential for attack by a defense attorney with regard to the reliability of chain of command of such a device within such a timeframe leaves a rather large opening in that regard. As such, it is important to ensure that the actual test results will be properly admissible in court and will also withstand a chain-of-command defensive strategy to destroy such evidence, or, at least, drastically reduce the usefulness thereof in court.
Thus, there remains a definite need to provide not only a reliable test device for certain narcotic substances present within the human body, but a simultaneous effective manner of guaranteeing, to a certain degree, at least, that such test results derived therefrom are reliably received, recorded, and eventually entered within a legal case as suitable evidence of the definitive presence of narcotic substances within a test subject's body at the specific time of testing. To date, again, such a desirous device and method have yet to be properly provided the pertinent industrial areas.